Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
A ballot measure circulating in Grass Valley would lock in the city's general plan for 18 years beyond the plan's projections.
City officials are trying to figure out the long-term implications - including, potentially, the unintended consequence of spurring development just beyond city limits without any city input into the process, Community Development Director Joe Heckel said Friday.
The "Managed Growth Initiative," supported by Citizens Concerned About Traffic and the Rural Quality Coalition, calls for the initiative to "become effective immediately upon its adoption by the voters, and shall remain in effect for a period of 30 years from the date of voter approval," according to the language in the initiative.
"The purpose of the initiative is to prevent over-development," the newly formed campaign committee, Friends of Grass Valley, said in a statement this week announcing plans to gather signatures to place the measure on the November ballot.
The spokesman for the committee, Grant Cattaneo of Citizens Concerned About Traffic, could not be reached for comment about the 30-year term. Laurie Oberholtzer, of Rural Quality Coalitions, deferred to Cattaneo for comment.
"We are only asking that the city council be required to follow the general plan that it adopted," Cattaneo said in a statement when the initiative was announced. "The general plan already allows a reasonable amount of growth."
Projections for the city's 2020 General Plan were based on calculations made in 1999, when the plan was approved, Heckel said.
The plan projects a population within the city limits of about 21,500 - not the 25,000 discussed by initiative proponents, Heckel said.
"Now, our population is about 13,000. When we adopted the plan, we had 10,000 in 1999. Most of that growth from the 3,000 has come from annexing Glenbrook Basin," Heckel said.
About 5,000 more residents would come into the city from annexing existing neighborhoods that logically should be annexed, such as Alta Hill and Gold Hill, Heckel said. About 700 more people would live in residences approved for building within city limits - bringing the city population to about 18,700.
The remaining room for growth - accommodating about 2,800 people - was calculated based on an estimate for natural population expansion and people moving in over the following two decades, Heckel said.
That growth was expected to include both infill projects in current city limits and the four special development areas - Loma Rica Ranch, Northstar, SouthHill Village and Kenny Ranch - expected to be annexed into the city by 2020.
But the annexations have not moved forward as planned, in part because of citizen concerns about growth and the downturn in the real estate market.
"We are not matching our general plan projections either for growth or for housing," Heckel said.
Also, the city council adopted guidelines in 2006 that raised the bar on what the city wants from developers, which slowed down their applications while they revamped their projects to meet the guidelines.
The city's general plan set allowable numbers of residences and square footage for commercial, business and industrial use for each property.
But the 2006 council guidelines allowed for fudging on the general plan guidelines for the four large developments - giving developers more residences, which bring in relatively quick income, in exchange for open space, telecommunications infrastructure, public amenities and mixed-use design.
The initiative would undo that arrangement, requiring developers to take their proposal to the voters for approval if their proposals go beyond the general plan guidelines for their properties. In all cases, the developers in the four large special areas asked for more residences than the general plan allowed.
"It's possible for the SDAs (the four large developments) or for any areas being developed, the developer may wish to process with the county instead of the city to move forward," Heckel said.
Since approving the city's general plan in 1999, city council members have amended it five times, Heckel said. On two occasions, the residential numbers were reduced, he added.
The reopening of the Idaho-Maryland mine also would require an amendment to the city's general plan, but as the property is within city limits, such an amendment, under the proposed initiative, would have to go to a vote of the public for approval.
To contact City Editor Trina Kleist, e-mail tkleist@theunion.com or call 477-4230.
City officials are trying to figure out the long-term implications - including, potentially, the unintended consequence of spurring development just beyond city limits without any city input into the process, Community Development Director Joe Heckel said Friday.
The "Managed Growth Initiative," supported by Citizens Concerned About Traffic and the Rural Quality Coalition, calls for the initiative to "become effective immediately upon its adoption by the voters, and shall remain in effect for a period of 30 years from the date of voter approval," according to the language in the initiative.
"The purpose of the initiative is to prevent over-development," the newly formed campaign committee, Friends of Grass Valley, said in a statement this week announcing plans to gather signatures to place the measure on the November ballot.
The spokesman for the committee, Grant Cattaneo of Citizens Concerned About Traffic, could not be reached for comment about the 30-year term. Laurie Oberholtzer, of Rural Quality Coalitions, deferred to Cattaneo for comment.
"We are only asking that the city council be required to follow the general plan that it adopted," Cattaneo said in a statement when the initiative was announced. "The general plan already allows a reasonable amount of growth."
Projections for the city's 2020 General Plan were based on calculations made in 1999, when the plan was approved, Heckel said.
The plan projects a population within the city limits of about 21,500 - not the 25,000 discussed by initiative proponents, Heckel said.
"Now, our population is about 13,000. When we adopted the plan, we had 10,000 in 1999. Most of that growth from the 3,000 has come from annexing Glenbrook Basin," Heckel said.
About 5,000 more residents would come into the city from annexing existing neighborhoods that logically should be annexed, such as Alta Hill and Gold Hill, Heckel said. About 700 more people would live in residences approved for building within city limits - bringing the city population to about 18,700.
The remaining room for growth - accommodating about 2,800 people - was calculated based on an estimate for natural population expansion and people moving in over the following two decades, Heckel said.
That growth was expected to include both infill projects in current city limits and the four special development areas - Loma Rica Ranch, Northstar, SouthHill Village and Kenny Ranch - expected to be annexed into the city by 2020.
But the annexations have not moved forward as planned, in part because of citizen concerns about growth and the downturn in the real estate market.
"We are not matching our general plan projections either for growth or for housing," Heckel said.
Also, the city council adopted guidelines in 2006 that raised the bar on what the city wants from developers, which slowed down their applications while they revamped their projects to meet the guidelines.
The city's general plan set allowable numbers of residences and square footage for commercial, business and industrial use for each property.
But the 2006 council guidelines allowed for fudging on the general plan guidelines for the four large developments - giving developers more residences, which bring in relatively quick income, in exchange for open space, telecommunications infrastructure, public amenities and mixed-use design.
The initiative would undo that arrangement, requiring developers to take their proposal to the voters for approval if their proposals go beyond the general plan guidelines for their properties. In all cases, the developers in the four large special areas asked for more residences than the general plan allowed.
"It's possible for the SDAs (the four large developments) or for any areas being developed, the developer may wish to process with the county instead of the city to move forward," Heckel said.
Since approving the city's general plan in 1999, city council members have amended it five times, Heckel said. On two occasions, the residential numbers were reduced, he added.
The reopening of the Idaho-Maryland mine also would require an amendment to the city's general plan, but as the property is within city limits, such an amendment, under the proposed initiative, would have to go to a vote of the public for approval.
To contact City Editor Trina Kleist, e-mail tkleist@theunion.com or call 477-4230.
